Objection of Performing Four Raka`at in Mina

Objection of Adding the Second Adhan in Jumu`ah
November 23, 2015
Objection for not Participating in the Pledge of Ridwan
November 23, 2015

 BACK Return to Table of contents


Objection of Performing Four Rakaat in Mina


An objection is levelled against Sayyidina ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu that on the occasion of hajj, he performed four Raka’at in Mina, whereas a traveller is commanded to perform two Raka’at instead of four.



This is an old objection that is levelled against the action of Sayyidina ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu. At this point, it is worthy to state that the scholars have written that Sayyidina ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu possessed extensive knowledge of the rulings of hajj. He was first in rank in this matter. Subsequently, it is stated in Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d:


كان اعلمهم بالمناسك ابن عفان وبعده ابن عمر

He was the most knowledgeable of the rulings of hajj and after him was Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu.[1]


The scholars of hadith have recorded the explanation provided by Sayyidina ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu in reply to this, after which there remains no scope for any objection. It is reported in Musnad al Humaidi:


عن عثمان (بن عفان) رضي الله عنه انه قال صلى باهل منى اربعا فانكر الناس عليه ذالك فقال : اني تاهلت بها لما قدمت واني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول اذا تاهل الرجل في بلد فليصل به صلاة المقيم

It is narrated that ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu led the people in four raka’at in Mina, so the people objected. ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu said in replied: “I made the intention of residing in Makkah when I entered, and I heard Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam say that when a person makes an intention to reside in a city, then he should perform the salah of a resident (i.e. four raka’at). Because I made the intention of residing here, that is why I performed four raka’at.”[2]


In short, after the explanation of Sayyidina ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, there is no need for a further response and the objection falls away.

The scholars have given various interpretations in this ruling. Despite this, after the above mentioned proof, we do not see the need to mention it.



NEXT⇒ Objection of Adding the Second Adhan in Jumu’ah

[1]Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d vol. 3 pg. 41

[2]Musnad al Humaidi vol. 1 pg. 21, Musnad Abu Ya’la vol. 1 pg. 157, Musannaf ‘Abdur Razzaq vol. 2 pg. 516, Qurrat al ‘Aynayn pg. 274

Back to top